Rampant? Read the article before commenting, they are talking about 800 people in the whole of France.
It's clearly not about severity, but about control. They would try the overreach even if there is no damage to be found (like using ridiculous "this is the money we lost" calculations).
>Rampant? Read the article before commenting, they are talking about 800 people in the whole of France.
800 is the figure given by google's attorney for people that would be affected by the block enforced by public DNS servers, not the total amount of "rampant piracy" that's going on.
* Domestic abuse is the victim's fault because they shouldn't have made their partner angry.
* The Chinese GFW is the fault of the people who criticized the government. They shouldn't criticize the government.
* Israel indiscriminately bombing Gaza is the fault of the Gazans who fought back the last time Israel did that.
* The Holocaust is the Jews' fault for not fleeing the country sooner.
>* Domestic abuse is the victim's fault because they shouldn't have made their partner angry. * The Chinese GFW is the fault of the people who criticized the government. They shouldn't criticize the government. * Israel indiscriminately bombing Gaza is the fault of the Gazans who fought back the last time Israel did that. * The Holocaust is the Jews' fault for not fleeing the country sooner.
Except in all those cases, you can vaguely make the case that the "victims" were in the right (eg. the right to be not physically assaulted). It's far more questionable to claim that people have the right to free live sports streaming.
Doesn't matter. Even if you have no right to be annoying, being annoying doesn't justify punching you in the face. Even if you have no right to kill 100 people, killing 100 people still doesn't justify killing 50000 people. Even if you have no right to watch sportsball, watching sportsball doesn't justify shutting down the Internet.
Rampant? Read the article before commenting, they are talking about 800 people in the whole of France.
It's clearly not about severity, but about control. They would try the overreach even if there is no damage to be found (like using ridiculous "this is the money we lost" calculations).
>Rampant? Read the article before commenting, they are talking about 800 people in the whole of France.
800 is the figure given by google's attorney for people that would be affected by the block enforced by public DNS servers, not the total amount of "rampant piracy" that's going on.
Logical extensions of this principle:
* Domestic abuse is the victim's fault because they shouldn't have made their partner angry. * The Chinese GFW is the fault of the people who criticized the government. They shouldn't criticize the government. * Israel indiscriminately bombing Gaza is the fault of the Gazans who fought back the last time Israel did that. * The Holocaust is the Jews' fault for not fleeing the country sooner.
I don't think it's a good principle.
>* Domestic abuse is the victim's fault because they shouldn't have made their partner angry. * The Chinese GFW is the fault of the people who criticized the government. They shouldn't criticize the government. * Israel indiscriminately bombing Gaza is the fault of the Gazans who fought back the last time Israel did that. * The Holocaust is the Jews' fault for not fleeing the country sooner.
Except in all those cases, you can vaguely make the case that the "victims" were in the right (eg. the right to be not physically assaulted). It's far more questionable to claim that people have the right to free live sports streaming.
Doesn't matter. Even if you have no right to be annoying, being annoying doesn't justify punching you in the face. Even if you have no right to kill 100 people, killing 100 people still doesn't justify killing 50000 people. Even if you have no right to watch sportsball, watching sportsball doesn't justify shutting down the Internet.
1 reply →